Saturday, August 29, 2009

Congressman Mike Rogers

Friday, August 28, 2009

Don't Exhale

Want more proof that the EPA is directly tied to global warming hysteria? This declaration, if implemented, would "pressure" (because we all know how much the government hates global warming) the government to regulate carbon omissions...even without legislation.

Here is an interesting article discussing the carbon issue:

"That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move -- expected in the next couple weeks -- that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.

But some skeptics say regulating carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, may be a difficult task, especially since people emit carbon dioxide with every breath.

"The EPA doesn't have the manpower to implement the regulations the way they would have to be," said David Kreutzer, senior policy analyst in energy economics and climate change at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Kreutzer said new regulations would trigger a flood of lawsuits, would create massive paperwork and the EPA should have no reasonable expectation that people would comply.

In April, the EPA released its proposed finding that man-made pollution is a cause of global warming, triggering a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final decision.

The finding was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

An EPA spokesman told that no date has been set for a final ruling.

"The EPA received over 300,000 comments on the proposal and is currently reviewing these comments in preparing the final rule," the agency said in a statement.

Congressional aides, however, say the EPA likely will issue its final ruling next month when Congress reconvenes and its first proposal will be to blame auto vehicles for the emissions.

That's just the start, however. Aides say later rules will extend to other sources and require a permit from the EPA to build anything that emits more than 25,000 tons of these pollutants. That could include schools, nursing homes or a Walmart.

In addition to carbon dioxide, the EPA said five other emissions are believed to cause warming when they concentrate in the atmosphere: methane, which is emitted by gassy cows as well as steam boilers; nitrous oxide, found in cooking sprays and used as anesthesia by dentists, better known as laughing gas; hydrofluorocarbons, which are used in refrigerators and aerosols; perfluorocarbons, a gas permeated by fire extinguishers, refrigerators and high end ski waxes; and sulfur hexafluoride, more commonly known for its use in circuit breakers, switchgear and other electrical equipment.

While the EPA follows its path, a climate change bill now working its way through Congress would also impose the first legislative limits on greenhouse gases, eventually leading to an 80 percent reduction by mid-century by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.

President Obama has said he prefers that Congress act to pass the legislation rather than address climate change through administrative action. He said he wants a bill that utilizes market-based solutions to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a clean energy economy that creates millions of green jobs. The EPA is unable to use market solutions and lacks the authority to tax.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll says 55 percent of Americans approve of the way Obama is dealing with energy issues, including his plan to limit greenhouse gases with the climate change legislation, while 30 percent disapprove. By a somewhat narrower majority -- 52 percent to 43 percent -- Americans back a system that would set a ceiling for greenhouse gas emissions and would allow companies to buy and sell permits to emit the gases.

"Most Americans would strongly support the president's and the bipartisan commitment to comprehensive legislation that addresses our dangerous addiction to foreign oil and create new jobs and addresses the climate crisis," said Vickie Patton, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Patton added that there's a "misinformation campaign designed to divide Americans instead of bringing Americans together to afford solutions."

Senate Democrats want legislation passed before talks in Denmark in December on a new global treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases.

But the legislation, known by opponents as "cap and trade," may be in trouble. In June, the House narrowly passed its version of the bill 219-212 after months of negotiations that led to last-minute deals and significant concessions to win the votes of moderate Democrats from industrial and agricultural states concerned about the costs that would be imposed on businesses in their districts.

Further compromises will be needed for the bill to pass the Senate, which has tried and failed before to pass legislation to curb greenhouse gases.

A GOP Senate aide told that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will introduce a climate change bill on the same day senators return from summer break.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has set a deadline to have all committees working on climate change finish by the end of September, the aide said. But it's unclear whether Democrats are still pushing for a vote before December after the public backlash to Democratic-sponsored health care reforms.

"We're starting to see hints that is no longer a viable option," the aide said, "especially given the number of Democrats who have expressed concern about cap and trade."

Kreutzer said he believes the EPA decision is a tool being used by the Obama administration to pressure the Senate to pass the legislation.

"None of this is surprising," he said. "There's a lot of people who want to use the bogeyman of EPA regulation to force people into the cap-and-trade bill. ... They don't want to give up that lever."

Kreutzer called EPA regulation a "ransom" for climate change legislation.

"It's a stone axe to go after something where you need a scalpel," he said.

He suggested a simple solution would be for Congress to pass a one-line bill that declares carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. But it's an unlikely solution."

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Wartime President

Today was an interesting day for the Obama Administration. New numbers were released over the weekend, and today, that show record debt, record deficit, and record unemployment. While these numbers plummet (like Obama's approval rating), the government is trying to take over the health care industry and has plans to dip its greedy hands in the global warming hysteria, financial regulations, and education.

We are in the midst of two wars. The War in Afghanistan, as of this past Sunday (Aug. 23), is "serious" and "deteriorating" according to the top military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen.

Like the famous childrens book Where's Waldo?, we must ask ourselves the question: Where's Obama?

Found him...

Saturday, August 22, 2009


The following is provided by Frank Rosenbloom, M.D.

Mr. Obama has gone back on the campaign trail to try to sell his health care reform to the nation. Mostly hand-picked, sympathetic attendees have been showing up to his town hall meetings. He continues to make the same points regarding health care reform, which need to be addressed specifically. I hope to address more in future articles.

1. We need health care reform.

We do not need health care reform. We have the best health care system in the world. We need health insurance reform.

2. Free market health insurance has caused our current problem.

It is the government that has caused the current problem. We have not had free market health insurance in this country since 1965. It is not possible to consider our system of medical payment free market when the government controls $.60 of every dollar spent on health care.

3. The evil and greedy health insurance companies have caused prices to skyrocket.

Again, it's the government that has caused prices to skyrocket. Medicare and Medicaid are the 800 pound gorilla and insurance companies are the fleas on the gorilla. Nothing can be done by the private insurance companies that has not been done by Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government opens the door and the private insurance companies follow. It is the government manipulation of the free market that has caused our current health insurance problem. The out of control medical costs in Britain and Canada, as well as in Massachusetts and other states that have tried government health care prove this point.

4. Nearly 50 million Americans are without health care.

Nearly 13 million Americans are without health insurance. No one in the United States is without health care. Government regulations prohibit patients from being turned away from hospitals, which must provide medical care to anyone. The huge number that the Obama administration has used is highly inflated.

5. A government option will lower costs and improve quality of care.

A government option will increase costs and reduce quality of care. In every instance so far government involvement in medical services has caused prices to increase. Medicare spending has increased at a rate greater than 10 times that which was projected. Medicare and Medicaid will be broke in less than nine years. Adding another entitlement program will cause economic disaster. The Congressional Office of Management and Budget has stated that the president's plan is unaffordable. Further, the necessary rationing in order to even begin the program will reduce quality of care.

6. If you like your insurance and your doctor you can keep them.

The same things were said at the inception of Medicare. Medicare was supposed to be a supplemental insurance plan for retired people. It now covers the disabled as well and those over the age of 65, who are now ineligible for any other type of primary medical insurance. The government option will become the only option. Therefore, it's not an option and in the end hospitals, doctors, and all health care companies will be working directly and only for the government.

7. Government medical insurance is more cost efficient.

Government medical insurance is less efficient. The government, by force of law, transfers administrative costs to the private sector. Hospitals and doctors' offices must assume the burden of administration under threat of criminal penalty. This unfunded administrative burden transferred to private individuals and private insurance is then added to the cost of the supposedly free-market healthcare system.
8. The government option is necessary in order to prevent loss of insurance by individuals with medical problems.

Government regulations make it mandatory for hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. The government can certainly pass a simple regulation making it illegal for medical insurance plans to be canceled due to illness on the part of the insured. This would be a simple solution but of course would not increase government control over our lives.

9. The government option would ensure treatment for sick individuals who would otherwise have lost health care insurance. It would prevent lifetime limits on medical care.

This is blatantly untrue. There are definitive limits to Medicare that are not being publicized. For example, a review of Medicare regulations shows it will pay up to a maximum of 90 days in the hospital for each medical incident. After that, a patient must be in a rehabilitation facility for 60 days in a row in order for Medicare to begin another cycle of payment. Similarly, there are limits on most other Medicare services. While private medical insurance may have a total lifetime limit on the amount that can be spent, there is almost never a limit on the number of days in the hospital.

10. A government option will not result in rationing.

The major government options already in existence employ rationing every day. Prohibitively difficult preauthorization, statements of medical necessity, convoluted and complicated paperwork, and often impossible to meet requirements result in rationing on a huge scale. Furthermore, delay in payment, denial of payment for services already rendered and other tactics reduce access to medical care on a widespread basis. The government may not call this rationing but it is an insidious form of rationing that will be an integral part of any government plan. Medicare misuses and abuses its funding and is guilty of literally stealing from hospitals and physicians.
As an example of this thievery, due to a change in the corporate status of my practice I was required to apply for a new national provider identification number (NPI) in March of this year. Within several weeks, without exception, all of the private insurance companies had registered the number and were paying on claims. After five months and exhaustive work of over 140 hours by my office staff Medicare and Medicaid had still not paid on a single claim. Finally, on August 14, Medicare made their first payment on claims that were five months old. Yet, if we do not bill Medicare within three months of the date of service, Medicare will not pay us at all. Government regulation and control permeates the entire medical system.

11. A government option will simplify the payment for medical services.

The government has always made things more complicated and expensive. This is part of their rationing system. The government has a habit of requiring new provider numbers every couple of years that must be used for all claims, including private insurance claims. When these are instituted, payment can be delayed for as long as six months. To see how "simple" the federal government makes medical claims, what follows are my required identification numbers.
UPIN #G16766
Medicare#R0000BLCGY (PTAN) OLD
Medicare # R147304
(PTAN) **NEW** R147303
Railroad Medicare#110162014
NEW Tax ID # 264520277
OLD Tax ID# 911768627
DEA # BRxxxxxxx (Hidden to prevent use)
Clia# 38D0933946
NPI# 1306924691 (individual)
NPI Group # 1235371485

Every point the president has made regarding his health plan is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright lie. The purpose of this plan is to ensure dependence on government and a financial windfall for his cronies, including trial lawyers, and has nothing to do with concern about the cost of medical care or about the health or lives of American citizens.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Oh, About That...

When I was in college, I worked for a local pet store. While employed there, I wore many different hats (stocker, book keeper, pet department, cashier, etc.). On several occassions I ran into a tiny problem working as a cashier...

My cash drawer was off.

Somehow, over the course of the day, the money in my register and the computerized sales receipt didn't match up.

Usually it was only a couple of bucks and could be easily fixed by throwing in a few extra coupons, but the mistake was still there. Repeat it enough and I could get fired. If I had a huge difference between the drawer and the receipt, the local law enforcement could have been brought in.

Which brings me to my point, is anyone going to fire the Obama Administration or bring in local law enforcement?

His cash drawer is off by a few trillion.

Extra coupons anyone?

Next week, the White House will "change" its projected ten-year deficit from 7.18 trillion dollars to a little over 9 trillion dollars. A difference of a mere 2 trillion dollars. This directly aligns with what the Congressional Budget Office projected months ago.
Silly Democrats, math is for kids!

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Health Care on the Back of a Napkin

This does a pretty fair job of explaining the three options currently being discussed for health care reform. Obviously, I would be more inclined to pick options #1 or #2 if you held a gun to my head. Health care reform is coming; one way or another, but let's do our best to fight the intrusion of government.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009


Should we entrust the government to take on, yet again, another entitlement program that has proven to be a fiscal disaster?

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Your Stimulus (Tax) Dollars At Work

America People Victorious Over Government?

That's a pretty significant headline, huh?

The American people, because of his/her ability to stand up and voice an opinion, have shaken the Obama Administration and changed the health care playing field.

We did it. Not Congress. Not the president. Not lobbyists. You.

Maybe Conservatism isn't dead after all.

There are probably four good reasons for this supposed victory over the Obama White House.

1) The American outcry over a government-run health care system

2) Barack Obama's approval plunge

3) The Democrats want to claim victory for health care reform.

4) Politicians realized that the political life is very, very fragile

All four reasons probably played an integral part in this recent development. However, don't be fooled into backing down just yet. If you give them an inch, they'll use your tax money for a 787 billion dollar stimulus package. Oh, wait...

Does this mean that the health care reform process will be smooth sailing from here on out? Hardly. There will be provisions that the Democrats pass that are statist in nature. We'll probably be taxed to death, but what did you expect? Look who's in charge. However, the American people's passion regarding this issue has created room for compromise and meaningful reform that DOES NOT involve government control.

In recent American history, when did the American people swing enough weight around to change a policy decision of this magnitude?

Today is a good day, America. It's not set in stone, but soak it up. If your keeping score...tally one for the American people.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Hamid Karzai

"Innocent life is the enemy of terrorism. In other words, terrorism sees us all as enemies. Therefore, we have only one approach, one cause, one direction, one objective: to fight it, period. Playing with it is like trying to train a snake against somebody else. You don't train a snake. You cannot train a snake. It will come and bite you. Therefore, there is only one way: to fight terrorism, to fight extremism, in whatever form, wherever it may be, and to not use extremism as an instrument of policy. These are evils that the world has to get rid of. We have no choice there. If we adopt a complacent approach of having a choice there, you will see more destruction all around the world, without knowing when the next target would be." ~Hamid Karzai~

At least somebody has it right.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Democrats: You Break It, You Fix It?

Posted By Mark Impomeni:

Facing growing public skepticism and falling approval ratings as a result of his push for nationalized health care, President Obama told a group in Virginia last week that he didn’t want, “the folks who had created the [health care] mess to do a lot of talking, I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.” It was a remark meant to rally the base to Obama’s side, and shore up his flagging poll numbers on the issue. Obama may have thought he was chiding Republicans in making the comment. But even a cursory look at the “mess” in the American health care system shows that on the issue of who is responsible, the president’s remark is as wrong as it was arrogant.

Health care experts across the spectrum can agree that there are three main problems with the health insurance industry in America today: community rating, which forbids insurance companies from charging premiums based on an individual consumer’s health status; the practice of defensive medicine, under which doctors order numerous costly and often unnecessary tests to cover themselves against the possibility of malpractice lawsuits; and employer-based coverage. Each of these problems, which together contribute most to the “mess” in health care delivery, were all either brought into existence, or are perpetuated by Democrats.

Employer-based coverage came about during World War II as a consequence of the National War Labor Board’s decision to institute wage and price freezes in an attempt to prevent production shortages due to labor unrest or inflation. The NWLB exempted fringe benefits like pension plans and health insurance from the freeze, meaning employers could compete for the dwindling pool of skilled workers by offering ever-increasing health insurance coverage. Workers grew accustomed to receiving health benefits as a condition of their employment, and the system of employer-provided health benefits became an American institution.

Although the NWLB decision may have sprung from the best of intentions at a time of war, it grew from the progressive tendency toward control. The consequence for today’s health care debate is that generations of Americans were separated from the cost of the medical care they received. As costs grew, and businesses were forced to cut back on benefits while increasing the employee’s cost share, workers began to feel the increase in costs for the first time. Two of the main drivers of those cost increases have been the practice of defensive medicine, and community rating.

Doctors know that every test they fail to order could be the one that leads to an expensive malpractice lawsuit. So they order test after test after test, providing themselves cover from the trial lawyers, and ratcheting up the cost of routine care. According to a study by the American Medical Association (.pdf), which has now signed on to President Obama’s efforts to take over the system, the federal Department of Health and Human Services put the cost of defensive medicine at between $70 and $126 billion in 2003. That number is almost certainly higher today.

Now consider that former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, one of the strongest proponents of nationalized health care, appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday trumpeting Congressional Budget Office numbers putting the cost of the current House bill at $60 billion per year. Simply getting a handle on defensive medicine by controlling the trial lawyers could save better than two times the cost of the Democrats’ “reform.” If Democrats were serious about getting costs under control, they would jump on curbing malpractice lawsuits.

But Republican attempts to reign in the trial lawyers have been resisted for years by Democrats in Congress and the White House. Trial lawyers are a huge source of campaign cash for Democratic politicians, and they are not about to bite the hand that feeds them. Patients, the uninsured, and true health care reform will just have to wait while Democrats continue milking their cash cow. When it comes to finding the mess-makers in health care, President Obama need look no further than Democrats and their trial lawyer friends.

Where Democrats have tried their hand at regulation, they have only managed to make the health care mess bigger. Community rating is a system dreamed up by state regulators that was designed to fix perceived inequities in the health insurance industry. Democrats at the state level didn’t like the fact that health insurance plans were priced according to risk. Sicker people who were more likely to use insurance were charged more for comparable coverage than healthier ones.

In a misguided attempt to level the playing field, community rating regulations forbade insurance companies from charging rates based on risk. Now, smokers pay the same rate as non-smokers. Exercisers pay the same as non-exercisers. This is despite the demonstrable fact that smokers and the overweight tend to have worse health outcomes, and so require more health care services. Insurance companies must make up the relative loss they take on these policies, with the result that everyone’s rates go up.

With the exception of New Hampshire and perhaps Pennsylvania, the list of states that mandate some form of community rating on health insurers reads like a list of the bluest of the blue states: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. These states, long controlled by liberal Democrats, were present at the creation of skyrocketing health insurance rates.

And since Democrats at the federal level forbid a true nationwide market in health care coverage by limiting the pool of available plans by the state the consumer lives in, consumers must buy plans that meet their state’s minimum standards, no matter whether they need or intend to ever use the covered services. This increases costs and limits choice. That seems to be just the way Democrats want it, as they have beaten back every Republican effort to open up the health care market to allow consumers to purchase plans from other states based on need rather than minimums. Maybe the president should have addressed these Democrats when he spoke of silencing those who have created the health care “mess.”

Congress now plans to bring community rating to the federal level, at President Obama’s urging. At his recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire, President Obama alluded to this component of his plan when he told the audience, “Under the reform we’re proposing, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history. Period.” That means that insurance rates could not be based on a consumer’s health status. The Wall Street Journal says this proposal, “blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all.”

President Obama wants to silence the critics of his health care nationalization because he is losing the debate, fair and square. Americans have empowered themselves with information and questions for the president and their representatives. So far, the proponents of change have been unable to provide satisfactory answers. Rather than try to cast blame, and ignore the clear history of the health care problems he claims to want to solve, the president should pull back his health care plans and listen to Americans’ concerns.

If he did so, his poll numbers would instantly improve and he would be able to design a health care reform that addresses actual, not perceived problems. But if the President is more interested in assigning responsibility for the current situation, he should convene a meeting of his fellow Democrats and tell them to stop using health care insurance and delivery as a laboratory to test out their misguided social experiments. Or else, he should tell them to clean up their own mess.



Tuesday, August 11, 2009

America's Health Care System

I found this article describing some of the statistics associated with the American health care system and other countries that have socialized medicine.

The statistics are surprising to say the least. This article proves that our health care system is in need of reform (generally to cut high costs and provide more affordable options), but it also proves that our government does not need to rush into any unwarranted decisions on the issue. Especially when dealing with the issue of a public option.

The best way to fight this abuse of power is to get informed.

Read. Research. Respond.

Find a town hall and ask questions.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Alliance for the Future of Israel (AFFI)

The Alliance for the Future of Israel is a joint venture of Jewish and Christian believers who are striving to advance the fulfillment of God's prophetic Word regarding the return of His nation, Israel, to Zion; and the rebirth of the modern state Israel.

The Alliance was founded out of the need to ensure the existence of Israel, to promise the security of the Jewish people dwelling in the Holy Land, and guarantee their ability to prevail over the many threats they are facing.

The founders of the Alliance understand that the future of the Jewish people in Zion is based on two conditions: development of new leadership in Israel, which possesses faith, values and integrity; and intensifying the support of the Judeo-Christian world for the vision of the establishment of a Jewish homeland, with a just and moral society in the Holy Land once again.

The realization of these two conditions is the goal of AFFI's two supported organizations: the Israel Leadership Institute, and the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, in cooperation and mutual support of each other. The courses of action of these two organizations are complementary and are designed to create a new future for Israel. The Israeli Leadership Institute (ILI) educates and develops the future generation of leadership in Israel, which will be dedicated to the re-establishment of an Israel devoted to her prophetic role among the nations of the world. The Jerusalem Institute of Justice (JIJ) leads the struggle for the existence of a just, moral and equal society in Israel, which will empower the society and boost support from, and cooperation with, the Christian world which is dedicated to Israel in the spirit of the prophets of the Bible.

The formation of a just society in Israel, led by elected, brave and visionary leaders is not to be taken for granted. In these two areas a grave crisis currently prevails in Israel, one that threatens the actual existence of Israel as a free, independent, safe, and flourishing country.

The leadership crisis and the moral crisis in the Israeli society are directly connected to each other. The leadership in Israel has been characterized in recent years by lack of stability, corruption scandals, failure to stand strong against security threats, and hesitancy in making bold decisions. At the very same time, under this leadership extremist factions demonstrate intolerance and at times even persecution towards minority religious streams.

The Alliance of the Future of Israel will change this reality!

The Alliance is directed at every Jew and Christian of faith, and calls them to take part in the struggle for the future of Israel. The Alliance seeks to enhance the collaboration between all believers in the vision of the return of Israel to Zion, in order to take action against those who wish to annihilate Israel. The support of Israel will be directed by the Alliance for the Future of Israel towards two main causes: education and the development of leadership; and social public activity for the protection of just values. The benefit gained by working in these two areas will be remarkable. A new generation of leaders will rise up in Israel, who draw their inspiration from the magnificent Biblical past of the people of Israel; and who will then lead a righteous society open for all believers, which will allow the fulfillment of the vision of the redemption of Zion.

The Alliance will deepen the existing connections between the communities of believers in the world and between the Israeli society. The Alliance will act in order to establish a direct and positive influence on Judeo-Christian communities, and their members and leaders; as well as on the leadership and society in Israel. This will further the striving for the fulfillment of their shared vision.

Not Evil Just Wrong

Barack Obama Experiment

America is fighting back.

But, the fight is far from over.

As someone who did not vote for Barack Obama (and adamantly tried to sway others to do the same), the actions of this President, and this Congress, have provided so many "I told you so" moments that I can no longer keep track of this debacle happening in Washington D.C.

From foreign policy to health care, the Obama Administration has proven to the American people that's it's not about the color of his skin (unless Mr. Obama makes it he has on numerous occasions), but it's about the thickness of his skin.

At least someone is happy with the Obama presidency:

Anyways, here is a great ad, that is spot on, from the RNC about the first 200 days of the Obama Administration:

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

47 Million Lies

A government health care plan, if it is passed, will sink the American economy and drastically reduce the quality of life within our borders. It will lead to less competition, less access, less choice, poor quality care, and higher taxes; to name a few.

The average American needs to understand this: The United States government does NOT care about YOUR health. If the government did, a public option would not be on the table for debate.

Reform? Yes, the high costs of health care is hurting everyone's wallet. However, the governments plan to control the health care industry (almost 20 percent of our nation's economy) isn't for your benefit. By controlling health care, the government nationalizes you. Your body. Your medical choices. Your right to the "pursuit of happiness."

President Obama has a tough sell. He sold us on nothing more than centrist rhetoric when his views and policies were far from it. The American people are slowly starting to catch on to Obama's statist approach to governing. He may have fooled the masses before, but, hopefully, the American people have learned from one too many mistakes.

One that could be costly.

One that could leave us with no u-turn option.

As Obama and his statist cronies travel America trying to pitch health care, look at the figures and "facts" being discussed. Things do not add up.

First, it is important to remember that America currently has the best health care system in the entire world. People flock to this country for medical care, advice, and quality. The U.S. breeds competition; which has allowed for medical breakthroughs and innovations that have been exported around the world. Countries that have socialized, or nationalized, (ie Canada and many European countries) its health care industry are falling further and further behind.

The Statist is preaching that 47 million Americans are without health care. That number, in itself, is a cause for concern. However, that number is greatly misleading. Of those 47 million uninsured Americans, 18 million make over $50,000 a year and 10 million of those people make over $75,000 a year. These people are younger, in good health, and normally do not want to pay for the HIGH COSTS of health care.

What about the poor you ask? Well, about 14 million - poor and disadvantaged Americans - are already eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, but those people don't care to enroll. What about the 8 million children Obama keeps mentioning that are uninsured? Again, for about 5 million of those children, his or her parent hasn't felt the need to enroll their son or daughter into a program that already exists. Don't forget about the 12 million illegal immigrants that are currently taking advantage of our "poor" health care system.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under the proposed health care plan, 17 million people would still be uninsured.

Add it up.

47 million is actually around 8 million people. Give or take.

In a country of over 300 million people, would it be justifiable to campaign for a government-run health care plan because 8 million people are uninsured?

Not a chance.

Nowhere in the entire Constitution does it say that government is responsible for health care. Health care is a privilege, not an alienable right. It's a product of society. Nothing more.

And yes, people fall through the cracks. However, people fall through the cracks in every area possible. We need to start fixing the cracks instead of tearing up the cement. This is simple logic and something that the statist doesn't care to recognize.

This health care issue is hardly a problem of the system, it is a problem of regulations and insurance companies that have owned the industry for several decades.

Wake up America...take back your country!


Monday, August 3, 2009

Does Islam Threaten America?

I posted this on my personal blog, but I wanted to share it in a political forum.

Yes, this post mixes religion with politics. However, as world events continue to dominate our nightly news programs, religion and politics will play a crucial part in America's political landscape.

Why hasn't the government shown more concern when it comes to Radical Islam? A better question, why hasn't Islam shown more concern with the growth of Radical Islam? There are 1.3 billion people in this world that practice the Muslim faith. In a recent Gallup poll that took place from 2001 to 2007, it was established that seven percent of Muslims identify themselves with "political and theological radicalization." Although it is comforting to know that 93 percent of Muslims are moderate at best, it is extremely sobering to know that seven percent of 1.3 billion people averages out to 91 million people. Currently, there are about 2.3 million Muslims living in the United States...for now.

The problem with Islam is that it chooses theocracy over democracy. Democracy promotes the ideas of individual rights, political freedom, social equality, and self-governance.

Is it perfect?


However, nothing in this world is.

On the other hand, a theocracy leads to a tyrannical order that limits everything that democracy promotes.

What are we doing, as Americans, to halt this tidal wave of tyranny and radicalization? Does anyone have a clue? Will we repeat the Carter Administration's mistakes when it came to recognizing the first Islamic Revolution. Or, is the spread of Radical Islam not a question of if, but when?

If you would like to know more about this issue, please pick up Joel Rosenberg's Inside the Revolution. I'm sure I'll have more on this topic in future blog posts.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Cash + Clunker = Government Ownership?

Not the biggest Glenn Beck fan (the 'shock jock' of political commentary), but sometimes he uncovers some great political concerns.

This is no different.

The "Cash for Clunkers" has been a huge hit across the nation. So huge that the government, car dealerships, and related websites have been overwhelmed by the traffic of consumers. Well, in order to take this burden off some of the aforementioned entities, the government has created a website (do not click on the link!) called

Usually, when downloading software or entering a website, most of us just press the 'ACCEPT' button so that we can get on with our mission. Nobody reads those things and, apparently, the government knows that. The following video discusses its purpose and the acceptable use policy associated with the website. Read and listen to the language of this agreement. Unbelievable!

Nationalization starts small, but over time, it devours everything we know as good. Pass this along to anyone who is considering the 'Cash for Clunker' deal.

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." - Theodore Roosevelt